Of the many things in which George Soros (left) has been involved, critics now say he is working to “stack the courts.” Soros has already established a reputation for spending millions of dollars each year in support or political, social, and global issues. He is well-known for his financial ability to be a political maneuverer and therefore this latest revelation should come as no surprise.

According to Fox News, Soros’ newest priority of ‘replacing elections by judges with selection-by-committee” has now drawn the attention of critics who are accusing Soros of attempting to stack the courts.

Fox News reports:

Most non-federal judges around the country are selected by voters in elections. But some states use a process called “merit selection” in which a committee — often made up of lawyers —appoints judges to the bench instead.

Soros has spent several million dollars in the past decade in an attempt to get more states to scrap elections and adopt the merit method. Supporters say it would allow judges to focus on interpreting the law rather than on raising campaign funds and winning elections.

Lynn Marks, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts — a group funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute, defended the latest Soros endeavor, “Merit selection would end the money race and get judges out of the fundraising business.

Despite the seemingly innocuous intent purported by Marks, critics see a more dangerous motive, that providing committees, often comprised of lawyers, would give left-wing judges the upper hand.

“The left can’t get their agenda through the legislatures anymore … so they think they can get their agenda through by taking over the courts,” explained Colleen Pero, author of a new report entitled “Hijacking Justice.”

Pero’s report is highly incriminating. It found that Soros has given $45 million over the last decade through the Open Society Institute to “a campaign to reshape the judiciary.”...

In response to Marks’ assertions, Pero highlighted a study by prominent law professors which revealed that elected judges were more independent than judges appointed by committee, and that those elected judges tended to take on a larger workload.

“We began this project with the assumption that the data would demonstrate that appointed judges are better than elected judges,” Pero remarked. “it may be that elected judges are, indeed, superior to appointed judges.”

Furthermore, Pero contends that the process of merit selection is “inherently undemocratic.”